15 Interesting Facts About Pragmatic That You Never Knew
Shavonne
2024.09.29 23:21
2
0
본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances and learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a plus. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.
Recent research has used an DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. The participants were given an array of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They are not necessarily correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a specific scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for 프라그마틱 사이트 정품확인방법; Https://Bookmarkingace.Com/, converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 L2 norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational affordances. They outlined, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they could face if they flouted their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which are best left out. It is also helpful to read the literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also showed an inclination to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore did not want to inquire about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.
CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances and learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a plus. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.
Recent research has used an DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. The participants were given an array of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They are not necessarily correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a specific scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for 프라그마틱 사이트 정품확인방법; Https://Bookmarkingace.Com/, converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 L2 norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational affordances. They outlined, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they could face if they flouted their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which are best left out. It is also helpful to read the literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also showed an inclination to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore did not want to inquire about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.
댓글목록 0